On the heels of a fiery CPAC speech by Wayne LaPierre, on Friday evening "Piers Morgan Live" invited David Bossie and Margaret Hoover to share their insightful opinions and political perspectives within the context of gun safety, and potential legislation.

"The polling across the country is not for an assault gun weapons ban, or the implementation of it," said Hoover, a Republican consultant.

Referencing LaPierre's divisive rhetoric which called for armed females being the strongest defense against a potential rapist, Hoover was inclined to suggest that the NRA's stance more closely mirrored the country's, than it does Piers Morgan's:

"The polling is much more aligned – not with every woman owning a gun – but people are closer to Wayne LaPierre's position than they are to yours."

Following up on LaPierre's point, Bossie offered his explanation for resisting any form of firearm ban:

"A rapist has to think that the woman may be armed. That's all it takes," said the president of Citizens United. "If you disarm everyone in America, they do know that you're not armed. That's the one fact that you [Piers Morgan] can't get away from. What they don't know is if you are armed. There's no sign on your back saying 'I'm armed.' There's the potential for you to be armed and that's what stops crimes."

Instead of the "right of the people," the Amendment's drafters could have referred to the militia or active militia members, as they did in the Fifth Amendment, had they meant to restrict the right. (Additionally, evidence that the term, as used in the Bill of Rights, referred to people as individuals: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." )

just look up Federalist Papers regarding 2nd amendment and its very clear that it is meant for individuals. Your just going to leave all the weapons on the base when you go home? How much sense would that make?

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist, No. 29, did not view the right to keep arms as being confined to active militia members:
"What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
If the representatives of the people betray their const*tuents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized! "

James Madison in Federalist No. 46 wrote:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. "

"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Const*tution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. . . . "
- The U.S. Supreme Court in Cohens v. Virginia (1821)

why dont you just research it yourself? its pretty simple & Piers will never care to tell you.
Here is the 5th Amendment & this is a place where it pertains to being IN A MILITIA:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

any other grade school questions you need someone else to look up for you?

mary, LEARN about the Supreme Court rulings on the cases of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), and KNOW more about the subject before you criticize. It has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm “unconnected with service in a militia”, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense.

It is people like you who are the nuts. Taking away the power of the gun from citizens has been proven by history and current events to be a disaster. Try reading some history books and watching international news. I cannot belive how naive the anti-gun nuts are.

The problem is that everyone can see thereself as a hero to rise aboue the stuation. The sad truth is you cant see it coming. maybe 1 in 100,000 breakins or burglaries ( sure say that one is you) but the sad truth is you cant get that gun out of the safe, box, closet. Under the bed loaded, there you go an easy access for your curious kids to gain access to a loaded weapon. In your purse , what do you have the finger in your purse on the trigger, Then your easily ready to shoot at anything or anybody in a split second without using resonable judgement. Now add a assault weapon th the mix and your going to shoot at anything that move, could be you kids sneaking back in from a night out. Sure tell me your going to be the glorious ( fantasy hero ) the odds are way,way against you>

how do 100,000,000 people have guns & dont shoot themselves, or their kids, or innocent people, & dont have accidents if all the stuff you say is true?
its not dificult to haves guns & practice safety to make sure there are no accidents, i learned as a child.

Sure tell me your going to be the unarmed weakling (crying on the ground begging the criminal not to hurt you or your family) the odds are way,way against you and you have no other options>

And no gun is going to "shoot everyone that moves" unless there is a person behind that gun intentionally pointing it at every moving person.

Only in Hollywood do guns get dropped and start shooting up a room full of people of their own volition.

And it is perfectly reasonable to think that people can open a safe and get to a weapon during a home invasion. There are quick access safes that open by finger print or quick combination that are still locked, but easily accessible. Lock your bedroom door to buy yourself a few extra seconds, open your safe in five seconds or less, and get yourself in position to protect yourself. People do it successfully all the time if you watch the news. Not to mention most home invasions are discovered while the person is outside the house and trying to work their way through a door or window. This gives you time to lock your bedroom, call the cops, open your gun safe, and wait. Even better.

Sorry previous post needed clarification. Your made up scenario about a woman reaching in her purse and accidentally firing her gun is what I meant about having a holster. This is exactly the type of thing having a holster that covers the trigger guard is meant to prevent, and they do so successfully all the time. Pocket holsters also are very effective and are made to do the same thing in a different context.

I have no problem with Mr. Morgan being against gun ownership, after all, he is British and citizens there are not allowed to own guns and for the longest time, even the local police were not allowed to carry guns. I think that changed when gun crimes started to go way up.

The problem many do not wish to see is that when law abiding citizens are no longer allowed to own guns, than only the criminals will have them. That would be a HUGE burden on any police force. It's bad enough as it is. Also, what many fail to see, no matter what laws are made or what amendments are revoked, it will make no difference to the illegal gun owners. There guns are illegal now and will be if change is made.

What keeps gun violence down to a manageable level is the thought that the next person you hold up or wish to do harm to might just have a gun to defend themselves. In many cases, those that are victims, the criminal had already decided that it was more likely than not that the person is unarmed. And the truth is, most US citizens are unarmed, so the odds are in the criminals favor.

For me, I hope I never have a need to own a gun but I do not care if the person standing behind me in the store has one concealed. Bad things usually only happen when guns come out.

It does make one wonder why a British man would come to the US and try to sway our policy.

I would not be so arrogant as to travel to Britain, and go on television to argue British politics with a Brit. Politics takes decades of living in a place to truly understand, and unless you live in a place for a lifetime, you're really not qualified to have an opinion, even if you study the issues in newspapers or other media.

It takes a DEEP understanding of a nation's culture and history to really comprehend the political landscape and why a government system works the way it does. Look at how little understanding people in different regions of the US have for how people in other regions interpret politics. People in California have a totally different set of political assumptions than people from the Deep South (in general, obviously there will be exceptions), and they've been living under the same federal government since birth! If the regional differences in politics lead to such different results and expectations, imagine how different the assumptions would be if you were to try to understand another nation's whole political system.

I'm not saying folks from overseas aren't smart and can't learn or indoctrinate themselves in our culture. Obviously, they can. But it takes a deep and nuanced understanding of our culture to be able to intuitively understand any nation's political system and be able to comment on it intelligently. I often feel Piers is projecting his similar, but different, set of British assumptions on the American system, and like you point out, it doesn't always work.

In light of the recent tragedy with the Seton Hill bus accident in PA, I plead with you to investigate and get involved as you did with Guns In America. As a retired VP in the bus transportation industry, I can tell you that there an under belly of safety concerns in the companies that the public is unaware that can easily be addressed and fixed. We are wasting valuable time with only addressing seatbelt issues. The actual safety concerns causing the majority of the accidents with the driver errors begin at the dispatch window. This is true for school buses as well as motor coaches.

Although a simple business in general, it is a fast-paced industry so highly dependent on individuals and a plethora of detail that is easily put aside during the mayhem of a busy day

Guns appear to be the issue. I contend they are simply an indicator. Technology, access to technology is at root. Whether a person in this or any other society can have access to the same level of weaponry that is normally reserved for the military and elephant hunters is a germaine discussion, but the core question is access. Personal 50 calibers, personal drones, personal computers. I will further point out that controlling access has worked in the past, but only temporarily. Custer was killed by weapons the Indians were forbidden. The Russians got the bomb. Wikileaks happened. Technology access is one of the most important stories of our time.

I do not agree with limiting gun ownership of AR-15 type weapons. People who are not sound of mind should be carefully watched, obviously. But while these weapons have a "cool factor" – I see a horrible scenario in owning one. These guns are right at the precipice of personal destruction. Having said all that, when I read the Second Amendment, it starts out by stating that we have the right to form a militia. In this day we cannot form any kind of credible militia should we have to, without something like an assault rifle. Squirrel guns will not do against rogue government forces or whatever. Even with AR-15's or other assault weapons, a local militia would still be outgunned. And any rational person would sadly pick up these weapons because they mean someone, quite possibly themselves, would die. Such is the defense of freedom. So, allow me to reiterate this argument: no, nut cases should not have access to lethal weapons, but there may come a time when we would have to take up arms to defend our freedom, and we would most likely be outmatched even with AR-15's.

Sorry Piers I agree with him. "A rapist has to think that the woman may be armed. That's all it takes," said the president of Citizens United.
"If you disarm everyone in America, they do know that you're not armed."

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.